Whilst unleaded 91 was selling for as low as $165 litre over the Xmas and New Year period, that was a great Santa Claus present.
But as of 10.1.24 the price has gone back up to $2.15 thereabouts. That is an increase of around 50 cents a litre.
If the oil companies can offer us $1.65 for about 3 weeks, then why in the name of hell cannot they maintain that price long term? There is no advantage for various service stations, as the fuel becomes the normal retail price in virtually all servos across our city.
I topped up yesterday before the increase. Only 22 litres but I saved approx $11.
I guess that we have to accept what it is, and it is up to us to manage our fuel purchases at the right price.
Jay&Dee.
-- Edited by JayDee on Thursday 11th of January 2024 01:20:10 PM
I topped up my bike yesterday, $10 for 240km of riding, it should be better then that, but have been using e10(recommended by manufacturer), will go to 91 ron from next fill for better economy. Best thing I ever did coming back to bike riding as my main transport. Use the car mainly for shopping and touring now only.
Agree. E10 is 94 Octane rating. Ethanol is less energy dense than oil based but at only 10% ethanol you would hardly notice that. So E10 should give better economy.
If the bike is tuned for it, and can take advantage of higher octanes, the cost per kilometer may be less with 95. But that would typically be higher compression ratio and the ability of the ignition system to automatically adjust itself.
Most of the RE owners forums recommend 91, as e10 has been proven to lower economy on their bikes, even Royal Enfield themselves have said that ethanol fuel does give lower fuel economy, e10 is recommended by RE to give them better pollution figures, so the bikes can pass Oz government restrictions. I did a ride today, 437km on 13 litres. a mix of e10 and 91 ron. It was test to see how far I can get on a tank, had a 6 lt bladder for backup. the bike has a 15 lt tank
-- Edited by Bicyclecamper on Friday 12th of January 2024 02:48:14 PM
Disagree...E10 is, IMO, total rubbish. I once accidentally filled a Landcruiser with it. Worst economy ever by a LONG way.
I had a similar experience with the Patrol. E10 in it certainly delivers worse consumption & the motor 'pings' under load. Perhaps a re-tune is in order.
The Mazda3 also gives worse fuel consumption on E10 & it has a notice on the fuel inlet advising that it is "Suitable for E10".
I seem to recall an old RACQ report that suggested that E10 needed to be >4c/L cheaper than standard unleaded to be economical. That's rarely the case.
BTW RACQ Fair Fuel APP shows lots of outlets near me selling Unleaded at 163c/L
-- Edited by Cupie on Saturday 13th of January 2024 08:56:24 AM
These reports of E10 being rubbish have been around a while but it is a little hard to understand since E10 is 91 unleaded with 9 to 10% ethanol.
I have heard that some spike their E10 with 95 & 98 the only petrol I use is in the mower and I have always avoided E10. So if I where still riding I would use 95 or 98.
Kebbin, the only thing is with my new bike, is a sticker right above the fuel spout that states Recommended fuel to use E5 or E10, and the manual states the same, so that's what I used, Since putting in just unleaded this week, the economy has risen quite substantially, so will remain on that fuel from now on.
